AIBU to think mental health crises should not be treated as antisocial behaviour

[Serencwtch]

TW: Some references to suicide.

In my local area Police have started a new initiative to reduce the demands & costs involved in attending to 'concern for welfare'/mental health crisis type calls.

They have issued a number of formal enforcement notices and warnings using Antisocial Behaviour legislation to people who have caused inconvenience through mental health crisis/suicide attempts in public places. These enforcements are community protection warning (CPW), Community Protection Notice (CPN) & Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBO).

I know one individual very well who has received one of these & they were very distressed by it & have now become very withdrawn & secretive. It's also difficult as a loved one as if I was concerned this person may be at risk I would be hesitant to involve emergency services as even a call to ambulance would likely result in police attendance & therefore have criminal implications for them. I also can see that it has increased their risk but in a more secretive & less public way. No doubt police consider this a success as they have not been called out to them.

I fully understand the pressures on police, I have friends & family that have served as officers & police staff. The funding cuts are every bit as bad as NHS or social care but with less public awareness.

This doesn't sit right with me at all. I think it's misuse of legislation designed to tackle antisocial behaviour & that a mental health crisis/someone attempting to take their life should not be labelled as antisocial behaviour.

As ever, the devil is in the details.

Which particular details?

I've seen the arguments from both sides & have seen the written police responses to one individual.

I'll try to answer as best I can but bear in mind some details are confidential & also a responsibility to not discuss specific details relating to suicide attempts

I think it depends. If the public mental health crisis/suicide attempt is putting the public in danger then this is antisocial behaviour. I would imagine that the orders are put in place as a deterrent and to incentivise people suffering from poor metal health to put plans in place for long term care and medication to stop this happening in the first place.

I’m not actually interested in your friend’s specific case

but fact is…. There will have been a valid and compelling and justified reason why your friend got the order against them.

it won’t be given willy nilly. It will be on a case by case basis.

Seems sensible to me

Someone lobbing stuff around a supermarket, frightening customers and staff, proclaiming it’s their bi polar making them do it for example - yep, an order would be appropriate… even if they do have a diagnosis.

It really does depend on the details.

No it's not along those lines at all. It was related to a suicide attempt in a public place. It would be irresponsible to give details about the method but it was in a public area but late at night - no road closures or public disruption.

That doesn't seem to be the case. It seems very like the SIM/HIN type schemes that caused controversy a few years ago & were abolished. This looks as though they have returned but in secrecy & police specific rather than in conjunction with NHS services.

I can try to provide specific details but bear in mind it's confidential and also responsibility and talk guidelines around discussing suicide

There was no risk to public but yes a suicide in a public place does cause an inconvenience and distress to others.

The person is a victim of childhood abuse & has been in the care system as a teenager. Also has autism.

There aren't any medications or long term support options available.

Were you present?

No, but I have read the police reports.

So no diagnosed mental health condition.

someone who made a suicide attempt and would appear to have caused sufficient disruption to the public that police issued an order.

Im going to trust that the police, given they were actually present and you weren’t, were valid in doing so.

OP - this is you, isn’t it?

A public suicide attempt runs the risk of wrecking the lives of others (the driver who runs them over, the person who has to deal with the aftermath etc).

I get it’s irrational but ruining someone else’s mental health is not the answer.

It's not me, no.

I wasn't present but know the person well, I've also seen the police reports as helped this person prepare for appeal of the CPN.

I work as a volunteer mental health advocate and was also working for a mental health charity around the time SIM/HIN was facing criticism so have knowledge on both sides.

I've also been caught up in a 'concern for welfare' incident of a stranger which caused severe disruption to my plans that day.

That’s a super tough hand of cards to be dealt, and it’s understandable why these measures would be concerning for you. I obviously can’t speak on this persons behalf or what kind of assistance they may have previously tried to get as I don’t know the ins and outs. You can get a GP referral to access mental health services for instance? Charities? Online therapy or courses?

I have my own issues with mental health and was diagnosed as ND as an adult (to be clear, I am in no way attempting to compare my situation with theirs - it’s just for context), and my perspective is that regardless of the situation, individuals are responsible to manage their own mental health. I realise that sounds overly simplistic and that there is nuance to every situation but at its core measures like this are put in place to protect the majority of people.

I think that people are sick and tired of others being violent and dangerous or being forced to bear witness to violence in public and it just gets excused because of mental health issues.

Had there been multiple instances of this behaviour (or similarly problematic behaviour) from the person, or just the one?

As others have said, the devil really is in the details, but if the behaviour was problematic enough (eg repeatedly taking up the time of the emergency services as a way of salving difficult feelings) then I could begin to understand it. The fault in that case would not be the anti-social behaviour order itself but the absence of actual mental health care for the person.

The behaviour orders tackle behaviour; they don't look at causes. Arguably, many people who create many different kinds of public inconvenience are acting out mental health difficulties or addiction. They deserve help for those, which is often lacking, but the behaviour also needs tacking in its own right.

Criminal proceedings are not the answer either. I can’t imagine as they would be a deterrent either - someone in that level of distress is unlikely to care.

Proper mental health treatment might be though but we don’t seem to bother with that. The way the UK treats people who are seriously mentally unwell is disgusting.

This is someone that survived & was talked down by a negotiator.

Dp you not think that punishment in that situation may make the person more likely to successfully complete suicide rather than engage with the emergency services in the same situation in the future?

Plus we don't label other people who cause similar costs & inconvenience as antisocial behaviour problems. Eg someone who is horrifically injured in a road collision causing a road closure for rescue & investigation would not receive a warning.

Wow. I have no words to articulate how shocked I am that the majority response here is, well they must have done something to deserve this

So no mental health issues then, perhaps more a personality disorder, and using scarce resources and upsetting the public.

Op I have just realised I have been on tour other threads. The parallel between what you are experiencing and have experienced recently - make it fairly clear that this is you

Yes

Online or in person talking therapies (sometimes known as IAPT) will exclude people with a complex trauma history ( sexual & physical abuse as a child) from their service.

Community mental health teams deal with diagnosed mental illness & no guarantee of support following a suicide attempt.

The person was detained under section 136 by officers a total of 4 times in the space of a year. Each time would have had a mental health act assessment and then discharged with no follow up.

They are on a 2 year long waiting list for psychological therapy through community team

The op wasn’t there (she says)

The person has no diagnosed mental health condition, is not on any medication

So I’m inclined to believe that in this instance the police had valid reason